• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

Shortcomings in GRO system

I know there are many errors on records indexed for bygone years.
The indexing of handwritten records can be excused in many case but not the ones typed in modern times.
I have posted this before but when I looked my own 1st marriage up, which took place in 1961,whilst my husband was indexed with my maiden name I could not find my entry.
I trawled through every entry of my surname until I came upon a Roberta who had married my husband.
I phoned Birmingham who said that it clearly stated Alberta on the record.
I then phoned The General Records Office.
They looked up the original record which was Alberta and told me there was nothing they could do about the index unless I went to birmingham register office with my ex to sign a declaration that I am Alberta not Roberta,but Birmingham already know this and so do Southport because they have told me their records show it ,it is merely transcribed incorrectly,their fault.
 
Yes, I'm afraid there are many transcription errors in all of the records, not just the gro. People tyranscribe what they see and seem not to be allowed to use any initiative. I had a relative transcribed as 'Ty' when clearly it was 'Ivy'. It looked clear to me on the original (the 1911 census) and I am partially sighted!!!
While humans have to do this work, there is bound to be an element of human error. Frustrating for the people looking for relatives, though! I empathise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top